The ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Sri Surakshitha Homes vs. ITO held that where the AO has assessed income on estimation basis then CIT cannot order to revise the assessment by picking and choosing some aspects of estimation to be re-verified.
In view of the petition filed by the assessee above, the court directed the respondent would vacate the attachment of the refund of Rs.105,95,04,390/- done u/s 281B of the act, as the petitioner was furnishing a Bank Guarantee of a Nationalised Bank for the equal amount
We find that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act except under certain specific, provisions like section 35D. Therefore, unless statutory provision is there to defer the revenue expenditure over a period
Section 194A (3) (b) Imposes duty on a co-operative society engaged in banking to deduct TDS where amount exceeds Rs. 10,000/-, whereas section 194A (3) (v) grants specific exemption to cooperative societies where payment made by it to members or to another co-operative society.
It is a general presumption that, expenditure in acquisition of assets is a capital expenditure there by not eligible for deduction u/s 37 (1) of the IT Act (However depreciation is allowed as per IT Rules) The honorable CIT (A) failed to note the difference in the nature of the soft-wares as dealt in Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
The decision of the case is based on the verdict by Apex Court of India in the case of TRF Limited Vs CIT, [323 ITR 397 (SC)] Where Honorable Court has held that, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable.
If the investments are not made from borrowed funds, then there should not be any disallowance. Since in this case it was evidenced from the records and evidence s that the income accured was from internal accruals consequently addition deleted
The first arguments which has been considered was regarding the source of advances in the 100% subsidiary comapy, which the assessee company argued to be out of reservs and suplus, which could not be contradicted by the Revenue.
In the case of M/s.Karur K.C.P.Packagings Limited vs. The Commissioner of Customs, it was held by Madras High Court that that where any drawback payable to the claimant is not paid within a period of one month from the date of filing a claim for payment
Hon’ble High Court while interprating section 48 held that while calculating Capital gain the expenses made will only be considered if it is made wholly or exclusive for that property. Also, the Hon’ble High Court held that The Hon’ble Tribunal was right in taking into consideration of the Judgement of Jurisdictional High Court.
